Libertarians could be spoilers in key Senate races

Democratic hopes of maintaining a razor-thin Senate majority may hinge on an unexpected outside force: Libertarians.

In the battlegrounds of Montana, Arizona and Missouri, polls show the Libertarian nominee poised to siphon a fraction of the vote — a small fraction, but potentially enough to tip the outcome in a cliffhanger. And with the battle for the Senate shaping up to be a coin-flip proposition, no factor — not even fringe candidates with little more than a Libertarian label to propel their campaigns — is too insignificant to dismiss.

“When candidates bloody each other up, nondescript candidates can become safe harbors,” he said.

Still, senior Republican officials dismiss the impact of Libertarians, particularly in Montana, arguing that the third-party candidates pull a tiny number of disaffected voters about equally from both parties.

Libertarian candidates in these three Senate races — as well as in Indiana — have enormous handicaps: a lack of money, party infrastructure and name ID, to name a few. So they’re clamoring to share the debate stage with their better-known rivals — and Democrats are all too happy to oblige.

In Missouri, Sen.Claire McCaskill has no problem letting Libertarian Jonathan Dine participate in the final debate Thursday; GOP Rep. Todd Akin scoffs at the idea. In an Arizona debate last week, Libertarian nominee Marc Victor went after Republican Rep. Jeff Flake on his signature issue of killing earmarks, aiding Democrat Richard Carmona in the process.

And in Montana, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester even said during his last one-on-one debate with GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg that it was “too bad” that Libertarian candidate Dan Cox wasn’t allowed to participate. On Sunday night, the 36-year-old Cox joined in a debate with the two main candidates, using the forum to attack both men for “nibbling around the edges” and failing to uphold their constitutional oaths of office.

“Rehberg didn’t vote for [the economic stimulus bill], but he did vote to raise the debt ceiling,” Cox said at the debate. “What you’re basically saying is, ‘I’m enabling this spending that I didn’t vote for.’ So either way, it’s two sides of the same coin. One guy is voting for it, the other guy is voting to allow it.”

The effect of these longshot, third-party contenders could be most pronounced in Montana and Arizona, which both have strong Libertarian streaks. And they could very well hurt Republicans more than Democrats.

Readers' Comments (25)

There have been a few Presidential polls that show Libertarian Gary Johnson pulling the same amount of votes from both Obama and Romney, but in most of the polls I've seen that included Johnson, he pulled more votes from Romney. I have not seen any poll where Johnson's presence on the ballot hurt Obama chances of winning. It makes sense. Gary Johnson is strong on balancing the budget and keeping the government out of people's business. Fiscal conservative plus social liberal = Libertarian. That's the part of the Republican Party that's not adoring the Book of Genesis.

Yes, these three senate races could be decided by the third-party candidates -- Libertarians in these instances. Likewise, national polls are skewed, as are state-by-state presidential polls, because Libertarian Johnson and others that will actually be on the presidential ballot voters receive are not included in the mix by most pollsters when polling. Therefore poll results are usually inaccurate and misleadingly skewed. I read that Goode in Virginia could be a decisive factor in the presidential race and Johnson in several states could tilt the balance.

Your right Tom We are the best of both Parties Republicans say they are Libertarians Fiscally (not that they ever live up to what they say) and Dems are Libertarians on Civil rights (records not much better than the republicans here)

I admire the backbones of libertarians and their appearance of their politicians to be above being bought and paid for by the highest bidding lobbyist.

Since I disagree with their lack of environmental protection and their extreme free market principles with no common sense regulations in a completely corrupt corporate global world, I'll need to stay with the democrats.

I would say that I would vote for a libertarian before 'any tea party' republican.

News flash....contrary to the media's belief, this is not exclusively a two party country.

I vote Libertarian, have since I started voting at 18. I have read and subscribe to the party platform. I don't vote to be a spoiler or to take votes from another candidate; I vote what I believe.

Not including Gary Johnson in the debates was predictable, but his supporters do their best to campaign for him.

Unlike the media's reporting, we are not all left over Ron Paul supporters; we believe personal freedom, small government in Washington DC and our homes, and ending our role as the world's policemen is what will make our country strong again.

As the Republican party continues to collapse on itself, Libertarians are seeing a rise in their numbers. We stand for the ideals that the Republican party forgot. Libertarians are not the party of No....there is no subscription to a set of "family values", no denying personal freedoms and decisions, and no idea that the government makes decisions for us whether it be personal or financial.

I have always voted Libertarian at the State and Local level and even in the last 2 Presidential elections. This time I will vote for Mitt Romney as this Nation cannot continue on the path the present administration and the current Democrat Party leadership is pursuing! The Republicans have been bad as well for the past 10 years but, I beleive Mitt romney is a different kinid of man and person than he has been portrayed as by the media and the Adminsitration.

All Citizens must make a personal choice and while I wholeheartedly support the Libertarian ideology I must do the right thing as I see it this election year!

You really don't get it, do you? The "Tea Party" is largely made up of Libertarians

While I agree that people should vote their conscience, it seems wrong to swing an election to a candidate that half the country doesn't agree with, or even like, just to make a personal statement. This applies to both parties.

Such is politics however, and everyone has to live with the results of a crusade that is sadly doomed to fail from the outset, by their own admission.

Obama was elected 4 years ago because many voters wanted CHANGE. Nothing changed. Two years later the Tea Party rose because many Republicans felt the need to change the Republican Party. Most Tea Party candidates who were elected have sold out. Nothing changed.

Members of both parties are screaming for change, but when they go to vote, they will refuse to change the way they vote. Most of these people will say they do not want to waste their vote. This will result in another wasted election. Another chance to restore the country to fiscal sanity will be lost. How many more chances will there be?

"You really don't get it, do you? The "Tea Party" is largely made up of Libertarians." Looking at the Tea Party freshman class in Congress and LMAO at your statement. You may consider yourself and many of your bagger friends to be Libertarians but you all sure have a knack for electing some of the most inept, belligerent, divisive Republican corporate tools that have spent their tenure ignoring our recovery efforts by shunning jobs bills in favor of naming post offices and attacking women's rights. Holding our Government hostage to get their way at the expense of our credit rating...yeah those are some fiscal geniuses there.

Obama was elected 4 years ago because many voters wanted CHANGE. Nothing changed. Two years later the Tea Party rose because many Republicans felt the need to change the Republican Party. Most Tea Party candidates who were elected have sold out. Nothing changed.

Members of both parties are screaming for change, but when they go to vote, they will refuse to change the way they vote. Most of these people will say they do not want to waste their vote. This will result in another wasted election. Another chance to restore the country to fiscal sanity will be lost. How many more chances will there be?

You may consider yourself and many of your bagger friends to be Libertarians but you all sure have a knack for electing some of the most inept, belligerent, divisive Republican corporate tools that have spent their tenure ignoring our recovery efforts by shunning jobs bills in favor of naming post offices and attacking women's rights. Holding our Government hostage to get their way at the expense of our credit rating...yeah those are some fiscal geniuses there.

Easy there killer! I didn't elect anyone. I was laughing at the comment of the previous poster who said he could vote for a libertarian, just not a tea party republican. He should have just said that he couldn't vote for a Republican, and let it go at that. If you want to rant and rave about the republican party, knock yourself out. If you want to attribute the evils of the republican party to the small libertarian element, then you're delusional.

Ya know, given the extremely shabby manner in which the GOP treated the Libertarians, and the screwing over they gave Ron Paul, I doubt seriously if a single solitary one of them (who isn't eaten up with hatred for Obama) would vote for ANY republican candidates. The naked cheating in SO many states where the GOP state committees simply refused to certify counties where Ron Paul won, or stripping the Ron Paul supporters of their delegates at the convention, they deliberately and with malice aforethought blew off the Libertarian wing of their party, and told them to go to hell. And I have a felling they're going to pay a very steep price, indeed, for that stupidity and arrogance.

I am going to laugh my ass off when Gary Johnson pulls away exactly the same percentage of voters that Mitt loses by. The Bagroes claim to be 'Libertarian', but they have no idea what the term means or the Libertarian party stands for beyond a few slogans and bumper stickers. I'm not a Libertarian myself, but as a general rule, they are far more intelligent, educated, and knowledgeable about issues than most Republicans and virtually all Bagroes. They may have no idea whatsoever how reality actually WORKS, mind you, but they were just about the ONLY youthful and imaginative members of the party, which, of course, made the albino prunes in charge very uncomfortable.

Without the Libertarians, the GOP is just a collection of bitter, hateful old ignoranuses who are desperate to return to "the good old days, when gas was 25 cents a gallon, blacks knew their places, and there were still good, cheap breakfast buffets". I think what made the GOP the angriest with the Libertarians is that they were younger, smarter, more energetic, and had more on their minds than how to maximize their profits; the the GOP wasn't going to be having any of THAT!

I wish the Libertarian party the best of luck; I think they actually represent the future of modern conservatism, and the GOP the dismal, out of gas past. Once the Libertarians get some experience under their belts and realize that theory and practice are two different things, they will do increasingly better, and that in the next couple of cycles, GOP rallies will increasingly be held in nursing homes . . .